In which I ponder the limitations and futility of obsessing over "optimal" and how 8 week studies may mean very little in the long run. (and the long run is all that reallly counts?)

In preparation for article/speech that I want to write, I wanted to do a consultation with Dr. Doug McGuff both to check my understanding and to make sure I didn't make too many errors in describing the science behind my latest distinctions:

1. The difference between so called optimal and good results is very small and is likely irrelevant in the long run. In fact, what may be optimal for one goal may well be detrimental to a different goal. (health vs performance being just one example)
2. Obsessing over "optimal" may in fact be an obstacle to "good" results.
3. Expanding on Doug and John's suggested definition of health as being largely dependent on balance between anabolic and catabolic states. As an over riding principle, in the absence of which, most if not all other discussions on what's "good" or "bad" for you or for your health or for your results, are not necessarily wrong but wholly incomplete and besides the point without this context. (straightening deck chairs on titanic)
4. We discuss also why many studies for reasons above, and others may bear little relevance to real world results. (among many shortcomings, I don't care what you can accomplish in 6, 8 or 12 weeks.... because I and my clients are hopefully planning our health and fitness for a lifetime)

This is my response to a question from a new client as to what this individual could expect. I know it's going to sound somewhat evasive in terms of stopping short of specifics, however the reality is, in my opinion, that the answer truly is "it depends".

I've tried to list all the factors that can come into play that will increase or decrease what one can expect, with the "quality of the stimulus" (the workout itself, which is the only part I'm involved in) being only one of many factors..

Enjoy. Sharing and Subscribing is greatly appreciated!